
In an encyclopedic new book that sheds fresh light on the defining fight of President Obama's first term, one of the administration's key health care reform allies recalls a thin-skinned, "weak-kneed" White House, strategically unwilling and temperamentally unable to face criticism from progressive reformers, whose toughest tactics were reserved for its natural allies.
Many of the revelations will be unsurprising to those who followed the year-long fight over health care reform closely. But they serve as a thorough reminder of the administration's uneven strategy during the debate, including its horsetrading with private industry, and private dealing with supporters on the left -- particularly those, like the author, who fought a bruising fight for a public health insurance option and lost.
The book is Fighting For Our Health, by Richard Kirsch, who directed the advocacy group Health Care for America Now during the push for reform. HCAN is a well financed umbrella group backed by scores of liberal groups, unions, and other reformers -- making Kirsch a close witness to the entire saga. He confirms that the White House treated the public option like a bargaining chip with powerful industry players, and believes that when his group became most critical of the bill mid-way through the fight, that top White House aides sought to have him canned.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)When it comes to the polling around a debt ceiling deal Americans are clear: they want the government to...you know...fix it.
Even the concept of avoiding default is colored by how public polling questions are asked, and whether a solution is proposed. A recent Pew/Washington Post survey showed that 75% of Americans were concerned that not raising the ceiling would lead to default and hurt the nation's economy. But when Gallup asked whether a voter's congressperson should actually vote to raise the debt ceiling, only 22% said yes, with 42% giving a firm no.
What the government should do to address the situation is somewhat murky, but some trends have appeared. Gallup showed, in a very general question, that 62% favor addressing the debt with either mostly spending cuts or an equal balance of cuts and new revenue. And when it comes to taxes as part of the deal, it depends on how you ask the question.
When Rasmussen simply asked "As part of legislation to raise the debt ceiling, should congress and the president raise taxes?", 55% of Americans, predictably, said no. But when Quinnipiac asked "Do you think any agreement to raise the national debt ceiling should include only spending cuts or should it also include an increase in taxes for the wealthy and corporations?" then 67% said yes, showing a swing when there was a clear definition of whose taxes would actually be raised.
But past any solution to the immediate problem, multiple polls showed that future spending is a major concern. The same Pew/Washington Post poll showed that a plurality of Americans are actually more concerned with the consequences of raising the debt ceiling, i.e. allowing the government borrow more money, rather than the immediate concern about default. The Quinnipiac survey showed a similar result: 43% responded that "raising the debt limit would lead to higher government spending" was a bigger concern than "not raising the debt limit would force the government into default and hurt the nation's economy." Gallup produced the same, with only 32% saying averting disaster was the key component of a debt ceiling deal, and 51% saying raising the ceiling without a plan to cut spending is more worrisome.
So Americans want a deal. And most want a balanced deal with more cuts than new revenues. But the debate has clearly seared an aversion to future spending, and looks as though raising the debt ceiling will never truly be a formality again.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)If House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) really wants to know what deals were struck between the White House and the health care industry to pass health care reform, he may end up giving health care reform some free advertising.
As part of his quest to publicize all of the dealmaking that characterized the health care reform process, Upton says he'll consider pressing industry leaders for details on their private negotiations with the Obama administration.
"It's something that's not off the table, in terms of what we may do," Upton said at a recent press conference with House leadership.
So far, Upton has directed all of his inquiries at the White House, to no avail. Changing course would give him easier access to the information he seeks (or claims to seek), but might put him behind the eight ball politically. That's because many of the stakeholders in question -- drug manufacturers, hospitals, and other interested parties -- either support the law, or entered a sort of non-aggression pact with the administration.
And if Upton drags those leaders -- many of whom lean Republican -- up to the Hill for a public hearing about their participation in the process, he may hear more about how they think it's a good law, than about how shady the whole process was.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)This is more in the spirit of partypooping than of celebration. But on the first anniversary of the Affordable Care Act, one of the law's most dogged defenders, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY), admitted he thinks the Supreme Court will strike down the individual mandate. It's not that he thinks the mandate is unconstitutional, but that the court has become so partisan, that its conservative justices will rule against President Obama in a 5-4 decision. He wasn't glum about it, though -- if the mandate goes he said it will pave the way for Congress to pass the public option.
"If lightning strikes, and it turns out that as many of us believe, the Supreme Court turns out to be a third political branch of government and they strike down the mandate -- big deal," Weiner said, expressing a 'so what?!' sentiment. "Big deal!"
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Karma's something something.
Remember Rep.-elect Andy Harris (R-MD)? The anti-health care reform physician who got a heap of bad publicity when he made a fuss about having to wait a few weeks until his employer- (a.k.a. government-) provided health care kicked in? And who asked whether the government had a... public option, of sorts, from which he could buy insurance in the interim?
Turns out hubris has consequences.
According to The Daily Times, "The Maryland Republican didn't get his top choice for a committee assignment, the Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over public health issues."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)A member of the White House's fiscal commission has released her own progressive plan for deficit reduction, after the commission's chairmen unveiled recommendations she vehemently opposes.
"Their proposal would have serious consequences for lower and middle class Americans, and that is why I cannot support it," says Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) in a statement. "I am releasing my own plan today because I believe that there is a better way to achieve our goal - one that protects the poor and the middle-class."
Her plan, which she claims would achieve fiscal balance by 2015, includes a host of ideas that were not included in the report released last week by Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles. It makes provision for another $200 billion worth of stimulus to take the form of unemployment insurance extensions and additional aid to states.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)In a candid interview with the Center for American Progress this afternoon, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle acknowledged that the public option didn't survive the health care debate because of a "understanding" that the White House reached with health care industry stakeholders -- particularly with hospital and insurance company trade associations. But the White House has long denied this suggestion -- which was, until now, based mostly on speculation -- and within hours of the report's initial publication, Daschle, a close White House ally, retracted his statement entirely.
"I don't think it was taken off the table completely. It was taken off the table as a result of the understanding that people had with the hospital association, with the insurance (AHIP), and others," Daschle told Wonk Room's Igor Volsky. "I mean I think that part of the whole effort was based on a premise. That premise was, you had to have the stakeholders in the room and at the table. Lessons learned in past efforts is that without the stakeholders' active support rather than active opposition, it's almost impossible to get this job done. They wanted to keep those stakeholders in the room and [the public option] was the price some thought they had to pay."
That rendering flies in the face of the White House's narrative, so TPM emailed Daschle to ask whether his statement reflected first-hand knowledge of the stakeholder negotiations, or was a conclusion he'd drawn independently. In response, he walked back the entire claim.
Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) may have hoped she'd put the primary behind her, but it will continue to haunt her for weeks to come. Now that she's running full-time in the general election against Rep. John Boozman, Lincoln is once again shoring up her right flank, tiptoeing away from the rhetoric she used to defeat Arkansas Lt. Gov. Bill Halter. The results are...awkward.
For instance, in an interview with the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Lincoln tried to dispel the notion that she cast the deciding vote for health care reform, which remains unpopular in Arkansas.
"I wasn't the deciding vote," Lincoln said. "I was among a handful of five Democrats that worked on getting consensus."
There's some truth to that. But where did the Democrat-Gazette get the notion that Lincoln tipped health care into the Democrats' win column? From Blanche Lincoln, who in the below ad said, " I grew up in an Arkansas family where we were taught to solve problems, not through hate and anger, but by coming together and getting something done. That's why I cast the deciding vote to pass health care reform."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)In a letter sent yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told two senators that he would push for a vote on the public option in "coming months."
The letter to Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR) says Reid was "disappointed" the public option did not make it into the final legislation.
"As we have discussed, I will work to ensure that we are able to vote on the public option in the coming months," Reid wrote. His spokesman, Jim Manley, confirmed to TPMDC that the letter came from Reid.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA), who is sticking to his "no" vote on health care, said President Obama told him in a meeting yesterday that he might go for the public option next year.
In an interview with Mother Jones, Lynch said Obama told him he can't put progressive provisions, like a public option, into health care reform this year. But next year may be a different story.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)The only way Democrats may be able to salvage November, according to Michael Moore, is to "find their courage" this week, add a public option back to the health care bill and start passing as much liberal legislation as possible.
"Maybe they won't win. But their boat is sinking. And when your boat is sinking, I think you have to take radical measures to stop it," Moore said in an interview with TPMDC. "Don't just sit there and watch it sink."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)At a roundtable meeting with several health care reporters and bloggers this morning, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi once again predicted final passage of a far-reaching heath care bill by week's end--but she insisted that success will only be possible if she acts quickly, even if that means members and reformers will have to abandon some of their key priorities, and trust the Senate to pass an amending bill through the reconciliation process.
"I have no intention of not passing this bill," Pelosi said in response to a question from TPMDC. "Let me say it in a positive way: I have faith in my members that we will be passing this legislation."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (1)The nine lives of the public option seem to have run out. Last week, Democratic leaders in Congress twisted themselves into pretzels to explain to angry progressives why the popular measure will not make the cut when they fix the Senate health care bill in the reconciliation process. And the leadership vacuum, combined with insufficient enthusiasm for the plan among rank and file Democrats seem to have sealed the deal this time.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the White House place the demise of the public option at the feet of the Senate: There aren't the votes in the Senate, they say. But that's anything but obvious. In the past year, the number of Senators who've gone on the record in support of the public option well exceeds 50. In recent weeks, over 40 have restated their support for it and 24 have signed a letter expressly stating they would vote for it if it was included in the reconciliation package. And last week Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin said he'd run a strong whip in favor of the public option if the House sends over a reconciliation bill with a public option in it.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (1)This morning, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin said that he would whip for a public option if one is included in the House's reconciliation package. This was great news to progressives, who yesterday attacked Durbin for saying he'd whip against a public option if it was not in the House package.
But then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi burst the bubble at her weekly press conference.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)A campaign to rally 50 senators to publicly declare that they support using reconciliation to pass a public option seems to be losing momentum -- even as the group behind the campaign insists it's getting more commitments from senators every day.
That group, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, says it has 41 senators on the record. But a closer look suggests some of the latest additions are senators who only conditionally support a public option being passed through reconciliation. And the staff of one senator on this list tells TPMDC he can't commit to it.
The group leading a renewed push for the public option tells TPMDC it's planning to target Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) for saying yesterday that he may urge Democrats against passing a public option.
Durbin told reporters Wednesday that, in order to get health care passed quickly, leadership may ask Democrats to oppose all amendments -- including any with a public option.
"We have to tell people, 'You just have to swallow hard' and say that putting an amendment on this is either going to stop it or slow it down, and we just can't let it happen," Durbin said, according to Roll Call.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (1)House Democrats are mounting a new effort to get a public option passed as a separate measure once the overall health care reform package becomes law.
Rep. Alan Grayson this week introduced a public option bill and called for such a plan to increase competition in the health care system. It's a fairly simple, 4-page measure that he's dubbed the "Medicare You Can Buy Into Act."
It would do just that, allow anyone who wants it to buy into the plan. Grayson (D-FL) said that under his proposal the premiums would equal cost and the program would "pay for itself."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (1)Senate Democrats are trying to reassure progressives and House members that voting for the more conservative Senate health care bill doesn't mean things can't be improved later. They point to major historic policy changes such as Social Security and Medicare when the bills were passed with their most watered-down provisions and later bolstered, drawing parallels between those battles and the health care fight.
The public option is the most frequently cited regret for many senators, some who continue to press for it to be included in a final package. But Democrats acknowledge that while they might not get it this go-around, they aren't giving up. Several progressives in recent days have cited the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, who said the battle for health care reform "never ends."
"We're not done," Sen. Sherrod Brown told reporters, pundits and bloggers at the Progressive Media Summit yesterday.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (1)In a video posted online by a progressive group, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) said he would support passing a public option via reconciliation.
Asked if he'd vote yes on a reconciliation measure to pass a public option, Dodd said, "Oh sure. I've been for it."
Dodd's office confirmed the comments to TPMDC.
Thirty-some senators have declared their support for passing a public option using the budget reconciliation process, which requires 50 votes to pass.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (3)President Obama's message to progressives who are dissatisfied with the Senate health care bill is two fold: First: Don't forget about the uninsured. Second: Don't forget what failure to pass this bill would do to the party and my presidency.
In a meeting with House progressives today, Obama made the pitch.
Speaking to reporters in the Speaker's lobby off the House floor, Congressional Progressive Caucus Co-Chair Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) said the President reminded them that "If this opportunity passes, much of our agenda, on the progressive side...it would be difficult, if not impossible for a generation to get back to this issue."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) became the 35th senator to declare support for passing a public option via reconciliation, her office confirms to TPMDC.
Cantwell told the Huffington Post that she'd vote for a public option under reconciliation, if the Senate parliamentarian OK's it.
"If the parliamentarian says you can and it can all work, yes," she said. "If it works, fine."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (1)Sen. Ted Kaufman (D-DE) has become the latest senator to say he would support passing a public option via reconciliation, his spokeswoman confirms to TPMDC.
Kaufman has become the 33rd senator to do so -- or 34th, if you count Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who would try to pass the measure if there are enough votes for it.
"I'm for a public option, if there's some way that it can get done," he told the Huffington Post. "If it qualified under reconciliation, then I would" vote for it.
Check out TPM's running list of senators who support passing the public option with a simple majority.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (1)Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) told reporters today that he would push to pass the public option in its own bill if it doesn't pass as part of the overall health care bill, The Hill reports.
"I still hope we get it on this. If we don't get it on this, we can give it a try," he said.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (1)
Nancy Pelosi has a problem. A bare 220 members of the House voted to pass her health care bill. Only one of those 220 was a Republican--Rep. Joseph Cao (R-LA)--and he's since defected. And several of the 219 Democrats, for one reason or another, won't be there this time around. Reps. Robert Wexler (D-FL) and Neil Abercrombie (D-HI) have abdicated their seats. Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) passed away. Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) has promised to bolt over the Senate health care bill's abortion provision, which he views as too lenient, and he's promised to bring other pro-life Dems with him.
That leaves Pelosi at a deficit. Because of vacancies, she'll likely only need 216 votes to pass the Senate health care bill, but she's short by an unknown number of votes. And she'll have to fill that hole with the votes of members who opposed reform the first time around. They're not exactly a willing bunch, but Pelosi has 38 members to mine from.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) today announced his support for passing a public option via reconciliation.
"As part of reform, [Udall] continues to feel that inclusion of a public option to go head-to-head with private insurers could play a significant role in bringing down costs and offering more affordable options to Coloradans," his office said in a statement. "He thinks it's important that such a plan -- like the one approved in the House bill -- negotiate reimbursement rates while competing on a level playing field with the private sector, and if such a plan comes up for a vote under the reconciliation process, he would vote for it."
Udall joins 31 other senators in supporting passing the measure by a simple majority. Of those, 24 have signed a letter written by Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) urging the leadership to pass a public option using reconciliation.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (2)Sens. Bob Casey (D-PA) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) both announced their support today for a public option to be passed via reconciliation.
Wyden, in a statement, said, "I've long believed we need a more competitive insurance market. If the House version of the public option came up for a vote in reconciliation I would vote yes."
His office did not immediately say whether he plans to sign the public option letter written by Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) to send to Senate leadership. That letter now has 24 signatories.
Last week, Wyden sent out a press release saying he was holding off on signing the letter until after the White House summit.
"He intends to first join the President in a good faith effort to see if a bipartisan solution is possible," the release said.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (1)Progressives are doubling down on their push to have the Senate pass a public option via reconciliation. But are they underestimating the extent to which the House may be as much the problem as the Senate?
The House is currently shy of the votes needed to pass the Senate health care bill, and, according to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, they're looking to make up the difference among public option foes in the Democratic caucus.
"I think the Senate bill, which is now the center of the President's consideration, I think you had a lot of people who indicated they'd like the Senate bill better," Hoyer said after an event at the Brookings Institution yesterday in response to a question from TPMDC. "It doesn't have the public option that gave a number of people concern. But there's still a way's to go."
Five leading Democrats--including Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin--have publicly announced that they will vote for a public option if it's offered up during the budget reconciliation process, where legislation can pass with a majority vote.
"Sen. Durbin has long been a supporter of the public option," reads a statement from Durbin spokesman Joe Shoemaker to the progressive groups Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Democracy for America, and Credo. "I don't know whether the votes exist in the Senate right now, but if the House version of the public option came up for a vote in reconciliation Sen. Durbin would vote yes."
Recent polling suggests that a small majority of Americans don't want Democrats to invoke the filibuster-proof budget reconciliation process to fix and finish health care reform. But is it the majority-rule vote they oppose? Or is it the underlying health care bill?
A new poll by the firm Research 2000--commissioned by the advocacy groups Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Democracy for America, and Credo--suggests it's the latter. After describing what reconciliation is, the survey asked "If the Senate passes a health care reform bill that you consider to be beneficial to your family, would you object to the Senate's use of 'reconciliation' rules to pass that bill with a majority vote, or not?"
Unsurprisingly, people are all for a majority-rule vote when they approve of the underlying legislation. The subtext here, of course, is that the public option is wildly popular--more popular than the rest of health care reform--and progressives are pushing Congress to include it in the reconciliation package they pass as part of the final push on health care reform.
Here are the results in the states of a handful of key senators:
Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) has signed Sen. Michael Bennet's (D-CO) letter calling on the leadership to pass a health care public option via reconciliation.
Levin is the 24th senator (and sixth committee chairman) to sign the letter, which was originally signed by Bennet, Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR).
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) says there's no sense in trying at this point. The public option should be put aside for the moment, so that health care reform can pass unperturbed--particularly because the measure on offer has already been watered down to a great degree.
"I fought for a meaningful public option, both in the Senate Finance Committee and on the Senate floor," Rockefeller says in a new statement. "My version didn't pass out of committee and other versions were watered down. Unfortunately, there simply has not been enough support to date to pass a strong public option, despite these efforts."
I will continue to support viable options for enacting a robust public plan. Right now, however, there is no value for the American people in diminishing a meaningful public option so substantially that it exists in name only -- and that is why we must focus our attention on the many great private health insurance reform ideas on the table today.
Rockefeller took a similar position on the issue of drug reimportation--a policy he supports and which may have had enough votes to pass in the Senate, but which was met with resistance by leading Democrats seeking to preserve industry's support for health care reform. You can read the entire statement below the fold.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)
The push to revive the public option suffered a major setback today when White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said the popular measure lacks the 50 votes it would need in the Senate to survive the budget reconciliation process. Gibbs' abruptness caught Senate Dem leadership by surprise, but what he said isn't really at odds with their own take. And yet, the number of public proponents of the plan keeps growing, and it's easy to remember a time when it seemed pretty clear that there were at least 50 votes for a public option in the Senate.
So what are the public option's chances in the Senate? Ostensibly, they're not very good.
"I think the public option ought to be done, but it's a long shot," said Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA). Specter is one of 23 signatories to a letter advocating passing the public option by way of reconciliation, so he has his eyes wide open. And there's some reason to believe this. The public option had four ardent Democratic opponents during the long fight over the Senate bill this past fall and winter: Sens. Ben Nelson (D-NE), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), and Joe Lieberman (I-CT).
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA)--who has signed a letter urging the Senate to pass the public option through the budget reconciliation process--says don't hold your breath.
"I think the public option ought to be done, but it's a long shot," Specter said on a conference call in response to a question from TPMDC.
"Regrettably the case, which started with the town meetings in August...has persuaded the American people that the public option would be a governmental takeover of health care," Specter went on. "It's really not, it's an option."
The public option actually has the support of a significant majority of the country. Pressed to square that fact with his sense that voters don't support it, Specter clarified: "I get that sense from my travels throughout the state and around the country. People are madder than hell at the government," he said.
We reported earlier that Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) said he would be signing Sen. Michael Bennet's letter urging that a public option be passed through reconciliation.
His spokeswoman now tells us the senator misunderstood the question, thinking that we were referencing another proposed letter which promises House Democrats that fixes to the Senate bill would be passed via reconciliation.
It's a letter basically to shore up commitment from wary House Democrats that if they pass the Senate bill in its current form they won't be hosed.
"The senator just misunderstood your question, thinking you were talking about the proposed reconciliation letter," the spokeswoman said. "He does not support public option in reconciliation."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) tells TPMDC that he plans to sign a letter urging Senate leadership to pass a public option via reconciliation.
"I expect that I will" sign, Carper said. The letter, written by Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO), has been signed by 23 senators so far.
That's a bit of a departure from his position just yesterday. Asked by TPMDC if he thought passing a public option via reconciliation was appropriate or desirable, Carper said he thought it wouldn't fly procedurally.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (3)In today's press briefing, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said President Obama didn't include a public option in his health care plan because it doesn't have the votes to pass.
"We have seen obviously that though there are some that are supportive of this, there isn't enough political support in a majority to get this through," Gibbs said today, according to Sam Stein. "The president ... took the Senate bill as the base and looks forward to discussing consensus ideas on Thursday."
The White House released Obama's new proposal this week ahead of a bipartisan health care summit planned for Thursday.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (1)
The public option has been alive, then dead, then alive, then dead so many times now it's enough to make your head spin. Right now it's somewhere in between--an undead public option, still beloved by a large majority of Democrats, but, for now, lacking the political leadership needed to usher it through the legislative process. Nevertheless, the fact that it has a pulse is remarkable in and of itself...so how did we get here all over again? Though the latest action is all in the Senate, the momentum re-emerged in the House.
"We had heard on the House side that [Colorado Rep. Jared] Polis was talking behind the scenes with folks about why a public option wasn't being pushed," says Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee--one of several progressive pressure groups (including Democracy for America, and Credo) pushing the public option.
That touched off a symbiotic relationship. If Polis, and fellow public option supporter Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME) would work the inside game in the House, the groups would build pressure from the outside, and together they could build a formidable list of signatories to a letter.
Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI) has signed the letter calling for passing a public option via reconciliation, his office confirms to TPMDC. He is the 23rd senator to do so.
The letter, written by Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) has been collecting signatures over the past week.
For the full list of signatories, see here.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (1)As more senators lend their names to a plan to use reconciliation to add a public option back into health care reform, a progressive group is targeting two centrist Democrats with polling that shows standing in the way of the reconciliation plan could cost them politically.
In a new Research 2000 poll conducted for the progressive coalition that has been trumpeting the reconciliation plan in recent days, both of Virginia's moderate Democratic senators -- Jim Webb and Mark Warner -- face an electorate that is upset with their performance on health care reform so far and wants to see a public option passed.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (3)Last night, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)--a long-time public option advocate--dealt a rough blow to members and progressives who think Democrats should pass the popular measure using the filibuster-proof budget reconciliation process.
"I'm probably not going to vote for that," Rockefeller said. "I don't think the timing of it is very good."
Earlier in the evening, in a brief interview with TPMDC, Rockefeller expressed concern that playing hardball with the public option at this time could imperil reform, but he didn't say he'd oppose it.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)
